Canine distemper virus infection of vaccinal origin in a 14-week-old puppy

The body of a 14-wk-old puppy (Canis familiaris) was submitted to the Animal Health Laboratory, University of Guelph, Ontario for postmortem examination following a history of intermittent anorexia and lethargy progressing to pyrexia, pruritic skin rash, mucoid nasal discharge, decreased mentation, dysphagia, muscle twitches, and focal seizures. Gross examination revealed rhinitis and pulmonary edema. Histologically, there was fibrinonecrotizing bronchopneumonia, tracheitis, and neutrophilic and lymphohistiocytic rhinitis; rarely within the cortical gray and white matter of the brain were small clusters of glial cells, with rare individual neutrophils in the choroid plexus. Although canine distemper was suspected, none of the usual supportive histologic lesions of distinct syncytial cells, viral inclusion bodies, or demyelinating leukoencephalitis were observed. Lung and brain tissues were PCR-positive for canine distemper virus (CDV), and CDV was detected immunohistochemically in the brain. The agent from the PCR-positive sample from the brain was genotyped and was a 99.9% match to the CDV Rockborn strain, indicating that the disease agent in our case was vaccinal in origin. Our unusual case highlights the possibility of reversion to virulence in a modified-live virus vaccine, and the occurrence of a disease in the absence of a full complement of the usual and compatible histologic lesions.

Commercial PRRS Modified-Live Virus Vaccines

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus (PRRSV) presents one of the challenging viral pathogens in the global pork industry. PRRS is characterized by two distinct clinical presentations; reproductive failure in breeding animals (gilts, sows, and boars), and respiratory disease in growing pigs. PRRSV is further divided into two species: PRRSV-1 (formerly known as the European genotype 1) and PRRSV-2 (formerly known as the North American genotype 2). A PRRSV-2 modified-live virus (MLV) vaccine was first introduced in North America in 1994, and, six years later, a PRRSV-1 MLV vaccine was also introduced in Europe. Since then, MLV vaccination is the principal strategy used to control PRRSV infection. Despite the fact that MLV vaccines have shown some efficacy, they were problematic as the efficacy of vaccine was often unpredictable and depended highly on the field virus. This paper focused on the efficacy of commercially available MLV vaccines at a global level based on respiratory disease in growing pigs, and maternal and paternal reproductive failure in breeding animals.

Comparative evaluation of 4 commercial modified-live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccines against heterologous dual Korean PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 challenge

BACKGROUND

Four commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) modified-live vaccines (MLV) was compared to protect growing pigs against dual challenge of PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2.

METHODS

Two of the vaccines were based on PRRSV-1, and two on PRRSV-2. A total of 72 PRRSV-naïve pigs were divided into six groups (12 pigs/group).

RESULTS

Two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated and two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups reduced significantly (p < .05) genomic copies of PRRSV-1 in their sera compared to the unvaccinated challenged group. Two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups reduced significantly (p < .05) fewer genomic copies of PRRSV-2 in their sera whereas two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups were unable to reduce genomic copies of PRRSV-2 compared to unvaccinated challenged groups. Two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups induced a stronger PRRSV-1 specific IFN-γ-SC response, while two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups induced a stronger PRRSV-2 specific IFN-γ-SC response. Two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups showed significantly (p < .05) lower mean macroscopic and microscopic lung lesion scores compared to two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrated that two PRRSV-2 vaccines were efficacious and exhibited similar protection while, two PRRSV-1 vaccines were largely ineffective against the dual challenge.

Molecular evidence for vaccine-induced canine distemper virus and canine adenovirus 2 coinfection in a fennec fox

A 61-d-old fennec fox (Vulpes zerda), 11 d after receiving a multivalent, modified-live virus vaccine containing canine distemper virus (CDV), canine adenovirus 2 (CAdV-2), parainfluenza virus, parvovirus, and canine coronavirus, developed oculonasal discharge, and subsequently convulsions, and hemoptysis, and died. Microscopic changes in the cerebrum were evident, including neuronal degeneration and necrosis; intracytoplasmic eosinophilic inclusion bodies were observed in astrocytes. CDV was detected in the brain tissue by immunohistochemistry. Pulmonary lesions of multifocal necrotizing bronchopneumonia had Cowdry type A intranuclear inclusions in the bronchial epithelial cells. Electron microscopy revealed crystalline arrays of adenovirus-like particles within the intranuclear inclusions. Additionally, the hemagglutinin gene of CDV and the CAdV-2 DNA polymerase gene were detected in the fennec fox; sequence analysis showed 100% identity with those of the vaccine strain viruses. To our knowledge, vaccine-induced CDV and CAdV-2 coinfections using molecular analysis have not been reported previously. Therefore, vaccine strains should be considered prior to CDV vaccination in nondomestic carnivores.

A modified-live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)-1 vaccine protects late-term pregnancy gilts against heterologous PRRSV-1 but not PRRSV-2 challenge

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of a commercially available porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)-1 modified-live virus (MLV) vaccine against PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 challenge in late-term pregnancy gilts. Gilts were vaccinated with the PRRSV-1 MLV vaccine at 4 weeks prior to breeding and then challenged intranasally with PRRSV-1 or PRRSV-2 at 93 days of gestation. After PRRSV-1 challenge, vaccinated pregnant gilts had a significantly longer gestation period, significantly higher numbers of live-born and weaned piglets and a significantly lower number of stillborn piglets at birth compared to unvaccinated pregnant gilts. No significant improvement in reproductive performance was observed between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant gilts following PRRSV-2 challenge. Vaccinated pregnant gilts also exhibited a significantly improved reproductive performance after challenge with PRRSV-1 compared to vaccinated pregnant gilts following PRRSV-2 challenge. The PRRSV-1 MLV vaccine was able to reduce PRRSV-1 but not PRRSV-2 viremia in pregnant gilts. Vaccinated gilts also showed a significantly higher number of PRRSV-1-specific IFN-γ-secreting cells (IFN-γ-SC) compared to PRRSV-2-specific IFN-γ-SC. The data presented here suggest that the vaccination of pregnant gilts with a PRRSV-1 MLV vaccine provides good protection against PRRSV-1 but only limited protection against PRRSV-2 challenge in late-term pregnancy gilts based on improvement of reproductive performance, reduction in viremia and induction of IFN-γ-SC.